Op-Ed Contributors

Prize makes everyone a loser

By David Gosset (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-11-04 07:57

Third, the choice made under the chairmanship of the former Norwegian prime minister and current secretary general of the Council of Europe can be interpreted as "politicized" and anti-People's Republic of China. To a certain extent, it does regrettably re-ignite an unnecessary ideological confrontation. Liu Xiaobo promoted Charter 08, and readers of this political manifesto, among which, we assume, are the five members of the committee, are aware that it calls for a revolutionary disintegration of the People's Republic of China. If Charter 08 has been formally inspired by Charter 77, the two cannot be compared because the text signed by Havel in 1977 was not advocating a revolution but only the application of legal rights.

The 18th objective of Charter 08 - the notion of a federation of Chinese democratic communities made up of Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang - would generate chaos if not a large-scale civil war. Jagland insists: "We want to see progress continue (in China), and that is why we awarded the peace prize to Liu." (New York Times, Oct 22). Jagland should know that a rearrangement of China's national territory and borders of such a magnitude would take the country back to instability and internecine fights in a tragic regression.

Fourth, and it is a corollary of the previous point, the committee opted for a highly divisive choice. Contrary to Alfred Nobel's will which calls for the recognition of a person "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations", the 2010 peace prize creates discord, incomprehension and confusion between China and the West when one should create the conditions for harmony and synergy.

The committee believes that a strict reference to abstract principles enshrined in international agreements is conducive to convergence but its choice does not integrate the subtle balance between the existence of universal values and the no less real difference between levels of development. In a sense, the committee's pure idealism excluded history, whereas it is the combination of the two, a genuine political philosophy, which has relevance and significance.

Finally, given China's past two centuries and its memory of Western imperialism, the decision is, to a certain extent, counterproductive.

The disapproval of the committee's decision is not a call for Beijing's immobility, rather it stems from the conviction that necessary gradual adjustments will have to be responsibly designed within China, and, given the country's objective situation, within the Communist Party of China (CPC) itself.

As a matter of fact, China's political transformation is already at work and occupies an increasingly central position in CPC's internal debates.

Thomas Jefferson's ideal, eloquently expressed in his First Inaugural Address, can serve as an universal source of inspiration: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But the third president of the United States was also the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the Chinese people, and only they, will define the exact terms and pace of Beijing's democratization. In the 21st century, the West's influence cannot be imposed by spectacular lessons of governance but can only be proportionate with its capacity to perfect itself.

The Nobel Peace Prize remains a respectable institution and one can hope that in the near future, it presents to the world a more accurate picture of the Chinese renaissance as an engine of global economic growth, as a pole of stability and a source of wisdom.

The committee could recognize, for example, the efforts of Chinese individuals who work patiently for the improvement of the legal system, for the protection of the environment, for more open and sophisticated media without adopting the radical approach of dissidence. The Oslo ceremony on Dec 10 could have been useful and meaningful, an inclusive celebration of the world's best hopes. Instead, it will be a solemn ritual of accusations that will take mutual misunderstanding and mistrust between the West and China to a tragic level. But despite the committee's unwise choice, amid a long series of self-serving monologues, dialogue has to go on.

The author is director of Euro-China Center for International and Business Relations (ECCIR) at the China-Europe International Business School, Shanghai & Beijing, and founder of the Euro-China Forum (ECF). The opinions expressed in this article represent neither those of ECCIR nor of ECF. A version of this article has appeared on the website of Europe'sWorld.

(China Daily 11/04/2010 page9)